The main legal point established in the judgment is that in eviction cases based on bonafide personal necessity, the landlords must prove their bonafide requirement and comply with the necessary pleadings under the relevant rent restriction act. Additionally, the tenants must substantiate their claims to contest the eviction.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The parties shall be referred to by their status in the revision petition.

2. The petitioners herein are tenants, who have been ordered to be evicted on the ground of bonafide personal necessity of the landlords by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. While invoking powers under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act'), the revision petition has been filed assailing the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below.

3. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners, apart from addressing the oral arguments, has also passed on a written note of his submissions, which reads as under:-

1. Whether expression 'own use ' u / s " Section 13 (3) (a) (ii) would not cover the tenanted firm- Sachdeva and Co ' and not entitle the landlord to secure eviction for the need of a tenanted firm', who admittedly in cross examination was admittedly found to be paying rent to landlord?

2. Whether in case of need of tenanted firm', having been . established in Cross, nonpleading of mandatory ingredients qua firm in terms of Ajit Singh Vs. Jit Ram's case, would be fatal?

3. Whether landlord having not disclosed occupation of first floor ' of same building [u / s 2 a], and later FF falling vacant and being let out on higher rent during pendency, would dis entitle landlord from securing eviction of tenant from basement of same building?

4. Whether the availability of numerous properties and buildings to landlord, which stood concealed in pleading, especially the partition of ground floor for the same usage i.e. 'storage godwon', would show landlord did not have any bonafide need and an artificial scarcity had been created by creating numerous camouflaging entities?"

5. Some facts are required to be noticed. Smt. Savitri Devi Sachdeva, alongwith her two sons, filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act seeking eviction of the tenants from basement of SCO no.413-14, Sector 35, Chandigarh. It has been asserted that late Sh.Darshan Lal Sachdeva was the owner and landlord of the premises and after his death, the respondents became the co-owners. It has been projected that respondent no.2 and 3 are now married and are running sale counter/retail outlet of Halt/Adidas from the ground floor of SCO-413-14, Sector 35, Chandigarh. Since their business has expanded with the passage of time, they require the basement of the SCO for personal use and occupation, as the space in their possession for storing goods is not sufficient. The eviction was also sought on the ground that petitioner no.1 and 2 have further sublet the basement to petitioner no.3. The petitioners no.1 and 2 (tenants) have got an independent showroom bearing 361-362 Sector 35-B, Chandigarh where petitioner no.1 is carrying his business by the name of Bharat Agencies while petitioner no.2 is carrying on business by the name of Bharat Distributors. The basement of the aforesaid building, owned and possessed by petitioner no.2, is also lying vacant. They also own a plot bearing no.690, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. It has been projected that the possession of the tenanted premises has been handed over to petitioner no.3 without the consent of the landlords.

6. While contesting, the tenant does not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant but claims that the landlords have no bonafide requirement. It has been claimed that respondent no.2 and 3 being Directors of Saini Estate and Development Private Limited are owners of SCO-449-450, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, apart from shop no.9-A, Lower Ground Floor, Elante Mall and plot no.178-178-A, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

7. As already noticed, both the authorities have allowed the eviction petition after recording a finding that the landlords have successfully proved their bonafide requirement.

8. L